The United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) proposed rule to
allow producers of organic food to place a USDA organic seal on their
products should be rejected because it misleads consumers into believing
that organic food is safer and better for the environment than conventionally-produced
food.

In announcing the proposed rules, USDA Secretary Dan Glickman stated
that the USDA certification is not meant to convey to consumers that organic
food is "superior, safer or more healthy than conventional food."
1 Likewise, Katherine DiMatteo, director of the Organic Trade
Association, says that organic products are not safer or more nutritious
than other foods. 2

Yet, a poll comissioned by The National Center For Public Policy Research
found that two-thirds of the public would be misled by the proposed USDA
seal. The poll, conducted by International Communications Research, showed
that 68 per cent of respondents would interpret a product labeled "USDA
Certified Organic" to be safer to eat than non-organic foods. Similarly,
69 per cent said that organically-labeled foods would mean that they are
better for the environment than conventionally-produced foods. 3

Clearly, the proposed USDA seal would only spread misinformation and
confusion among consumers. Most disturbing, it would use government auspices
to give an unfair market advantage to organic producers over conventional
growers by making consumers believe that all non-organic foods are somehow
inferior. In particular, consumers who seek to buy environmentally- friendly
products would be misled into believing that by buying organic they are
aiding the environment.

This is simply not true.

Advocates argue that organic farming is better for the environment because
it doesn't use the pesticides and herbicides required by conventional
farming. But, while organic farming yields certain environmental benefits
compared to conventional farming, organic farming also presents some striking
environmental disadvantages.

Because organic farmers eschew pesticides and herbicides used by conventional
farmers, they cannot use modern conservation tillage techniques that have
been extraordinarily successful in reducing soil erosion. As a result,
compared to conventional farming, organic farming is woefully inadequate
in controlling soil erosion. A study by UCLA sedimentologist Stanley Trimble
examining the effects of modern conservation tillage techniques in Wisconsin's
Coon River Watershed illustrates just how beneficial modern farming is
for soil preservation.

Dr. Trimble found that modern techniques had reduced soil erosion to
a mere six percent of the soil erosion rate of the Dust Bowl-era 1930s.
There is no way organic farming could have produced such impressive gains
in soil preservation. 4

But the most glaring environmental disadvantage of organic farming is
its exorbitant need for land.

Organic farming is only about half as productive as conventional farming,
which means organic farming requires far more land to feed the world than
modern methods. In his book, Saving the Planet With Pesticides, Dennis
Avery of the Hudson Institute's Center for Global Food Issues estimates
that modern high-yield farming has saved 15 million square-miles of wildlife
habitat. Avery calculates that if the world switched to organic farming,
10 million square- miles of wildlife habitat would have to be converted
for green manure crops such as clover and rye. That is an area larger
than the total land area of the United States and Europe. 5

The prestigious Scottish Crop Research Institute (SCRI) also has concluded
that organic farming has mixed environmental results. For example, the
SCRI criticized organic farming's use of a copper-based fungicide, "Bordeaux
Mixture," as unhealthy and damaging to the environment. Although
it is considered by many organic farming advocates as a hallowed and time-tested
application, the SCRI concludes that "Bordeaux Mixture" is "not
at all environmentally-friendly." It concludes that the copper levels
required for the "Bordeaux Mixture" to be effective in repelling
slugs and snails are environmentally toxic: so much so that the European
Union will ban it by 2002. 6

Concludes Roger Bate, director of the European Science and Environment
Forum: "Not only is organic farming not better for the environment,
but if you scale it up I believe you can even damage the countryside."
7

There are also increased safety risks to consuming organically-raised
foods. A recent study conducted by scientists at the University of Georgia
revealed that organic foods have alarmingly high levels of potentially
deadly E-coli bacteria cells. Comparing organically grown lettuce to conventionally-produced
vegetables, researchers found that the non-organic lettuce had 1,000 E-coli
cells per gram while the organic alternative had 100,000 cells per gram.
Says Professor Michael Doyle, who headed the study: "Our research
raises questions about the safety of organic produce." 8

Far from educating the public, the proposed USDA organic seal misleads
consumers into believing that organic food is safer and environmentally
better than conventionally-raised food. Since scientific research shows
that, in many respects, the opposite is true, the USDA should set aside
its labeling proposal.